Legal Opinion
(PS) Alston v. LLoyd
District Court, E.D. California
Decided October 30, 2019No. 2:18-cv-02420Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR., No. 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in 19 accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently before the court is 20 plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) The 21 court deemed this matter…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Jeffrey A. Saul v. United States of America Ray Larsen Colleen St. Louis John Doe St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Lockheed Martin Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Network Solutions, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.